Skip to main content
. 2008 Feb 25;12(4):1272–1283. doi: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00294.x

Table 1.

Effect of G-CSF and inhibitors on cardiac function at 4 weeks after surgery

n Sham + Saline 10 Sham + G-CSF 10 MI + Saline 10 MI + G-CSF 11 MI + G-CSF + Parthenolide 6 MI + G-CSF + Wortmannin 7
LVDd, mm 3.69 ± 0.03 3.70 ± 0.03 5.70 ± 0.01* 5.10 ± 0.01*# 6.37 ± 0.20*+ 4.78 ± 0.15*#
FS, % 33.8 ± 0.6 35.0 ± 0.7 11.4 ± 1.2* 19.3 ± 1.5*# 13.9 ± 0.6*+ 22.9 ± 0.7*#
HR, bpm 538 ± 45 542 ± 20 558 ± 10* 600 ± 16*# 516 ± 12*+ 535 ± 26*#
LVSP, mmHg 108 ± 2.8 110 ± 2.4 55 ± 2.4* 65 ± 2.7*# 57 ± 2.0*+ 71 ± 2.1*#
LVEDP, mmHg 0.7 ± 0.2 0.5 ± 0.1 10.0 ± 0.9* 5.2 ± 0.6*# 9.4 ± 1.3*+ 4.4 ± 0.7*#
+dP/dt, mmHg/s 8795 ± 459 9126 ± 584 2666 ± 345* 4176 ± 403*# 2894 ± 244*+ 4881 ± 159*#
−dP/dt, mmHg/s −8994 ± 466 −9266 ± 509 −2528 ± 264* −3681 ± 319*# −2449 ± 215*+ −4435 ± 287*#

MI, myocardial infarction; LVDd, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; FS, fractional shortening; LVSP, left ventricular peak systolic pressure; LVEDP, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure; *P < 0.05 versus saline-treated sham; #P < 0.05 versus saline-treated hearts with MI; +P < 0.05 versus G-CSF-treated hearts with MI.